regular release policy

boris_kolar · 2007-03-14 00:00:02

Arch Linux has been my favorite distribution since version 0.6. The only thing that's a bit frustrating is long time between releases. I know that Pacman can update old release to current state, and I understand incremental updates. Downloading almost a year old release simply doesn't feel right. I believe this "feeling" matters a lot, and remains one of the few points where distributions like Ubuntu still have an advantage.

I propose the following release policy:
- releases are made 4 times per year
- releases are made on predetermined dates (for example: 20.3, 20.6, 20.9, 20.12)
- nothing can stop a release (not even anticipation that a new kernel will be released the very next day)
- a new release does NOT imply that new major features are added
- version numbers are no longer 0.x (which sort of makes people think Arch is alpha/beta quality, which is definitely not true)

Thoughts?

Anyway, keep up the good work! I really appreciate it!

.:B:. · 2007-03-14 00:17:55

If you follow the existing concept (i.e. the version number reflects the state of the installer and not the state of the distro itself) it is perfectly feasible to create timely and frequent releases.

However, coming from a distro that likes to release six (!) times a year, I can only tell this: I partially switched to Arch because it releases so infrequently, which means there is no pressure to release at all, and time can be spent on other stuff.

So I'd say: a regular release policy is not a must .

byte · 2007-03-14 01:57:48

Once you got Arch installed you don't need to care about releases any longer and if you had followed the news/forums/lists you would have noticed the 0.8 alpha and beta ISOs long ago.

The only thing I would agree on is the release naming but there's already a thread somewhere suggesting to adopt the Gentoo/Ubuntu scheme.

phrakture · 2007-03-14 01:59:20

I actually agree here. We're working on it.

We had a dev meeting a while back, and decided on quarterly point releases, if there is no new installer available.

We have a meeting coming up soon and this topic is slated for discussion as well.

Snarkout · 2007-03-14 02:04:27

Aren't there generally incremental unofficial releases every now and then, or was that a one-time thing tpowa did for the community right before the 0.8 alpha releases? Once I learned *how* to install arch, I can't say I've ever had a problem. I did my first install shortly after the migration to udev, and that was more work that I wanted it to be, but I'm still happily running that same install. I've done several other installs since then, and for the most part they've been painless, especially when I used the afore mentioned unofficial isos recently.

McQueen · 2007-03-14 06:01:25

phrakture wrote:

We have a meeting coming up soon and this topic is slated for discussion as well.

I really don't know how much added work this topic would impose, but it should be obvious from this forum that many of the new user's problems come from burning the current full InstallCD and having so many updates and required config changes from that version that it results in various breakages. We recommend to do a network install but if that is all that really works then that is all that should be produced. So yeah, if some CD spins can be released frequently enough to alleviate this sinkhole then it would be very helpful.

chaosgeisterchen · 2007-03-14 08:01:28

boris_kolar wrote:

Arch Linux has been my favorite distribution since version 0.6. The only thing that's a bit frustrating is long time between releases. I know that Pacman can update old release to current state, and I understand incremental updates. Downloading almost a year old release simply doesn't feel right. I believe this "feeling" matters a lot, and remains one of the few points where distributions like Ubuntu still have an advantage.

I can understand, that you feel uncomfortable with it. It would be very good to have frequent releases, which contain up-to-date software.

I propose the following release policy:
- releases are made 4 times per year

Seems reasonable, 4 releases per year are a good start.

- releases are made on predetermined dates (for example: 20.3, 20.6, 20.9, 20.12)

Another reasonable point, but the actual release dates should be fixed elsewhere and by the devs.

- nothing can stop a release (not even anticipation that a new kernel will be released the very next day)

I totally agree. The release simply has to work and therefore should avoid to include some fancy new feature / program version just because of its inevitable superiority. One can update lateron. Arch will still be one of the most bleeding-edge distributions minding this.

- a new release does NOT imply that new major features are added

Another time I totally agree. Releases should be done in form of Snapshots of the current core system. There should not be a officially maintained installation disk just like SuSE, Fedora or Ubuntu are offering (with included desktop, may it be *box, XFCE, Gnome or KDE), as Arch has a totally different approach.

- version numbers are no longer 0.x (which sort of makes people think Arch is alpha/beta quality, which is definitely not true)

Exactly what it should be like. We have long since surpassed 1.0 quality.

Thoughts?
Anyway, keep up the good work! I really appreciate it!

Here you got mine, it hopefully helped.

Regards,

chaosgeisterchen

phrakture · 2007-03-14 15:05:42

Keep up the discussion guys, I'd like to use the points brought up here as actual fuel for this discussion.

dolby · 2007-03-14 16:43:01

in such a case, id definately prefer developers working on the actual packages than the installer or matters conserning the iso's cause there has to be a release in X days. when comes the time that ppl feel that the installer is decent and theres not much to be done regarding that then definately yes.
also id like to see (talking mostly about now if possible) links to the beta isos in the archlinux download page containing a disclaimer and possibly a link to the forum post regarding them. i cant even imagine ppl installing arch using a .7.2 cd (besides maybe the ftp one). ppl should know. they're not unofficial anyway
it ll help arch gain places in distrowatch too

watsonalgas · 2007-03-14 16:45:40

I think Arch is fine the way it is actually. I don't really have a need for updated ISOs, since it's so easy to upgrade. I can see how it bothers some that there are steady release points and more often ones, but I don't really see the need, since what really gets updated are the packages, and all you need is pacman to update that.

Once a new ISO is released, it's out of date, so one will need to upgrade anyway. But I guess the more up-to-date the better, and the less upgrades one will have to do.

As for the naming convention, I think the 0.8 is just to give it a name, as everyone one knows this kind of comes with the rolling release system. A better idea might be to just get rid of the numbers and keep Archlinux, to not confuse people. But then again, doing this, it may confuse people even more. Either way, people have to realize what the number actually represents when they start using Arch, and that is actually only a convention.

Oh, and by the way, I thought Judd and Arch weren't really looking for popularity, so I don't think any changes should be made to gain it. If people find it and like it, fine, if they don't, then they are missing out...

Last edited by watsonalgas (2007-03-14 16:47:46)

lucke · 2007-03-14 16:56:10

Providing just a snapshot of packages quarterly, with some installer tweaks every now and then sounds like a good idea. Just updating packages on the ISO isn't that much work and that way people installing Arch, especially for the first time, will surely have a less bumpy road (unless there isn't any devfs to dev or initrd/mkinictpio-like fun coming in the future, but it's almost certain that some major change will happen, sooner or later).

Dusty · 2007-03-14 16:56:27

Phrakture:

I don't think the devs have the manpower for releasing on predetermined dates. I can imagine it would mean stuff is released when its not completely ready.

I agree that releases should be made more often, so that when new users install, they aren't faced with a lot of updates. This can be done, I think quite easily. Its not just the installer that needs updating.

It seems like often releases are held back because the devs are waiting for releases of major programs (kde, gnome, gcc, etc). This makes sense because if you have a major update to one of these packages immediately after an Arch release, new users are going to have to go through the update process until the next installer is released. However, I think its been pushed to an extreme. Sometimes you just can't wait for packages to be updated.

I think the best policy is to make a release whenever a major update breaks the system. If its possible to install from base and then pacman -Syu from there without having ANY difficult questions to answer (feel free to define difficult, but even simple things can be daunting: i.e. when you have a new install and its asking you if you should replace package X with package Y) or configuration files to change (that you would not have to change anyway). This may mean you make two releases in two weeks sometimes, and it might mean you don't make one for a few months at other times. I think releases should be made at least every six months, even when there are no 'breaking' updates, simply because if I download an ISO I'd like it to mean I have a little less stuff to download afterwards.

Dusty

hacosta · 2007-03-14 18:57:52

i think it's a good idea, no need for the installer to change, just up to date packages should be fine

chaosgeisterchen · 2007-03-14 19:45:17

@Dusty: What has the Arch release policy to do with the release cycles of (for instance) GNOME or KDE, as Arch actually ships without a preconfigured desktop onboard? Or was this just a generalized example?

Snarkout · 2007-03-14 21:23:12

I think the example was given in general. The most common response I see to the many threads that pop up asking when the next release is going to be (other than "when it's done") is "we're waiting until [large package x] has been updated."

Dusty · 2007-03-14 22:14:24

Its interesting you say that, but I do recall a release being put on hold until after Gnome was out of testing. Now I have no idea why that would be, unless certain base packages Gnome depended on were also in testing at the time.

Dusty

boris_kolar · 2007-03-15 12:04:01

Do we need alpha/beta/rc releases at all? I don't think so. It's not like Arch linux is a factory product, where releasing a broken product could mean bankruptcy. And different people have different ideas what "stable" and "beta" actually mean. Is it "Debian" stable, or just "works for me" stable? Anyone using Linux (or Windows/MacOS) shouldn't bet too much on stability anyway. Hard disks can fail, Linux malware is no longer something unheard of. And you don't get any guarantees even for the most stable Arch linux version ever released. I agree that new releases should be somewhat tested, but if some critical error is found after the release, it's still possible to release a fixed version shortly after. Those wanting super-stability will adopt a safer "wait and see" strategy anyway and install new version only after checking community response.

Would a regular release cycle produce "release rush"? Maybe, but I guess that happens anyway. It might even reduce pressure on developers to release their next big thing on time. After all, the next release is always at most 3 months away (assuming 4 releases yearly). So if you don't know if your package will be ready for next release, it probably won't be - you could use extra 3 months to polish things. As a developer (although not Arch developer, yet) I know how quickly 3 months pass.

Is psychological perception of a product important? I believe Ubuntu is a solid number one because a) it has a cool name, b) it's actually not a bad distribution, and c) people believe Mark Shuttleworth is a guarantee that Ubuntu will survive and grow. Similarly, releasing a 0.x distribution makes some people think it's not ready yet and it's better to wait for a 1.0 release. Also, downloading RC2 and wasting an empty CD and time to burn it, only to discover two days later that a final release is available, will make some people feel stupid.

Should Arch linux strive for "world domination"? Sure. Not because world domination is important, but because it's fun. It's great to see distribution rise on distrowatch.com rank, despite we all know it's not really important. It's a rather silly form of recognition. It prevents people from burning out (latest studies show that burn-out does not occur because one works too much, but rather because one receives insufficient recognition for invested work). I'm sure it would bring Arch developers much joy to see Arch hit top 5, of course without cheating or "selling out".

.:B:. · 2007-03-15 12:34:53

This might be a bit off topic but... I am very sorry but the distrowatch argument is the worst argument ever... Distrowatch is completely arbitrary. Arch's image is that of a distro that is not for noobs; gaining places on distrowatch will only make the noobs flock. I've seen distros go down because they use Distrowatch to (artificially) up their popularity. You won't gain any. It will just kill you if you cannot cope with it.

If you're on top of distrowatch, that's fine. But be prepared for the flood of distrowatch fiends, distro whores, and new-to-linux-but-i-want-to-try-every-distro-although-i-don't-know-shit-about-it users. Arch has a rather large and skilled community, but I sincerely wonder if it has the backbone to cope with a huge amount of that type of new users. Those are the kind of people that get disgruntled easily - because they don't get RTFM'ed on Ubuntu's forums, or because on Ubuntu it _does_ work out of the box, etc., etc. Of course, they'll leave eventually, but not without spreading bad rumours about this distro. Which will affect Arch's image. That's how the story goes.

Arch was my pick because of the 'i don't care whether you want us to release' attitude, and because of the fact they lay low. Two crucial factors in their success, imho. A more frequent release might not hurt, especially to overcome the huge updates a new user would have to perform - which is likely to break something somewhere - but hey... this is Linux right .

Last edited by B (2007-03-15 12:36:14)

rossm · 2007-03-15 14:43:33

Please,please,please keep the rolling release system going.

As long time linux user (since almost the beginning) I don't ever want to go back to a system where there are incompatibilities between point releases or new isos to download every couple of months.

The Arch system works fine. All the other stuff is just marketing hype and has nothing to do with the usability, flexibility and even stability that Arch's reputation is built on.

Ross

lucke · 2007-03-15 14:54:32

No one is thinking of abandoning rolling release system.

Last edited by lucke (2007-03-15 14:57:59)

phrakture · 2007-03-15 16:46:38

I think we've gotten a bit off topic. Here's the thing:

We're discussing release ISOs only. There are many rationales for keeping an up-to-date install iso. I'll list a few:
* Less packages to download on a new install. Helpful for first-time users or anyone NOT using an ftp install
* "CYA" for important changes - devfs -> udev. Imagine installing right now from a cd that only supports devfs, ugh
* A more public "view" of progress. This one is rougher, but every time a new ISO is released, people see that as forward progress...

Of course there are MANY MANY more. Those are just a few.

The point is, we're only talking about releases of the ISO. Not packages themselves.

shilder · 2007-03-15 16:54:17

I believe Ubuntu is a solid number one because a) it has a cool name

"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word means "I can't configure Slackware"

only advantage of fresh iso is a fresh packages on it :)

deficite · 2007-03-15 17:17:35

I've always thought it'd be beneficial to clarity and Arch's image to make a hard distinction between the installer version and the set of packages it contains. An iso would be referred to as something like this: "Official Installer, version 0.8: Repo snapshot as of 3/15/07". Also, I don't like the fact that whenever Arch starts up it displays something like "0.9 Rubberchicken". This, I think, also confuses the heck out of some people (especially our newer users). Arch has no version, don't throw an arbitrary one on there simply because a new ISO was released. I mentioned this to somebody quite a while back (around when 0.7 was just named or somewhere around there) on IRC.

Last edited by deficite (2007-03-15 17:18:13)

Snarkout · 2007-03-15 17:30:13

phrakture wrote:

I think we've gotten a bit off topic. Here's the thing:
We're discussing release ISOs only. There are many rationales for keeping an up-to-date install iso. I'll list a few:
* Less packages to download on a new install. Helpful for first-time users or anyone NOT using an ftp install
* "CYA" for important changes - devfs -> udev. Imagine installing right now from a cd that only supports devfs, ugh
* A more public "view" of progress. This one is rougher, but every time a new ISO is released, people see that as forward progress...
Of course there are MANY MANY more. Those are just a few.
The point is, we're only talking about releases of the ISO. Not packages themselves.

I'd personally *love* to have a quarterly release of an install iso - a snapshot, as it has been called. It would certainly be a boon to the distro's adoption, IMO. My only worry is that it seems like you guys work awfully damn hard for very little in return (beyond community praise) at this point. I'd really hate to add more to your plate, especially if it results is devs becoming frustrated, overworked, and generally unhappy with their dev status. How is your manpower in relation to your "plate" at this point?

Unlike some others, I think more widespread adoption could only serve to help Arch in the long run, so I'm definitely strongly in favor of the idea in theory. It's what happens in practice that worries me.

AndyRTR · 2007-03-15 19:53:57

shilder wrote:

I believe Ubuntu is a solid number one because a) it has a cool name
"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word means "I can't configure Slackware"
only advantage of fresh iso is a fresh packages on it

This is some kind of statement we won't accept in this forum. No distro bashing here please!

Arch Linux

#1 2007-03-14 00:00:02

regular release policy

#2 2007-03-14 00:17:55

Re: regular release policy

#3 2007-03-14 01:57:48

Re: regular release policy

#4 2007-03-14 01:59:20

Re: regular release policy

#5 2007-03-14 02:04:27

Re: regular release policy

#6 2007-03-14 06:01:25

Re: regular release policy

#7 2007-03-14 08:01:28

Re: regular release policy

#8 2007-03-14 15:05:42

Re: regular release policy

#9 2007-03-14 16:43:01

Re: regular release policy

#10 2007-03-14 16:45:40

Re: regular release policy

#11 2007-03-14 16:56:10

Re: regular release policy

#12 2007-03-14 16:56:27

Re: regular release policy

#13 2007-03-14 18:57:52

Re: regular release policy

#14 2007-03-14 19:45:17

Re: regular release policy

#15 2007-03-14 21:23:12

Re: regular release policy

#16 2007-03-14 22:14:24

Re: regular release policy

#17 2007-03-15 12:04:01

Re: regular release policy

#18 2007-03-15 12:34:53

Re: regular release policy

#19 2007-03-15 14:43:33

Re: regular release policy

#20 2007-03-15 14:54:32

Re: regular release policy

#21 2007-03-15 16:46:38

Re: regular release policy

#22 2007-03-15 16:54:17

Re: regular release policy

#23 2007-03-15 17:17:35

Re: regular release policy

#24 2007-03-15 17:30:13

Re: regular release policy

#25 2007-03-15 19:53:57

Re: regular release policy

Board footer